Scientific evidence and the law

B. Osimani, F. Russo, Jon Williamson
{"title":"Scientific evidence and the law","authors":"B. Osimani, F. Russo, Jon Williamson","doi":"10.5282/UBM/EPUB.29388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper considers the legal tools that have been developed in German pharmaceutical regulation as a result of the precautionary attitude inaugurated by the Contergan decision (1970). These tools are (i) the notion of \"well-founded suspicion\", which attenuates the requirements for safety intervention by relaxing the requirement of a proved causal connection between danger and source, and the introduction of (ii) the reversal of proof burden in liability norms. The paper focuses on the first and proposes seeing the precautionary principle as an instance of the requirement that one should maximise expected utility. In order to maximise expected utility certain probabilities are required and it is argued that objective Bayesianism offers the most plausible means to determine the optimal decision in cases where evidence supports diverging choices.","PeriodicalId":88325,"journal":{"name":"The journal of philosophy, science & law","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of philosophy, science & law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5282/UBM/EPUB.29388","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The paper considers the legal tools that have been developed in German pharmaceutical regulation as a result of the precautionary attitude inaugurated by the Contergan decision (1970). These tools are (i) the notion of "well-founded suspicion", which attenuates the requirements for safety intervention by relaxing the requirement of a proved causal connection between danger and source, and the introduction of (ii) the reversal of proof burden in liability norms. The paper focuses on the first and proposes seeing the precautionary principle as an instance of the requirement that one should maximise expected utility. In order to maximise expected utility certain probabilities are required and it is argued that objective Bayesianism offers the most plausible means to determine the optimal decision in cases where evidence supports diverging choices.
科学证据和法律
本文考虑了由于康特根决定(1970年)开创的预防态度而在德国药品管制中发展起来的法律工具。这些工具是:(i)“有充分根据的怀疑”的概念,它通过放宽对危险和来源之间证明的因果关系的要求而减弱了对安全干预的要求,以及(ii)在责任规范中颠倒举证责任。本文着重于前者,并建议将预防原则视为期望效用最大化要求的一个实例。为了最大化预期效用,一定的概率是必需的,客观贝叶斯主义提供了最合理的方法来确定在证据支持分歧选择的情况下的最佳决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书